MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7042091374

Our common ground: Cultivating women’s health through community based research

2009· book· en· W7042091374 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network) · 2009
Typebook
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVancouver Foundation
KeywordsScope (computer science)Common groundProcess (computing)Community healthCommunity-based participatory researchPublic healthPopulation health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Provides an overview of the scope of the community based research (CBR) process as it relates to research focused on girls and womens health, and gender and health related issues. Although it is not an exhaustive guide, it is intended to give readers a solid understanding of CBR.\n\nOne of a series of four WHRN primers focused on key areas and innovative approaches in girls' and women's health and gender and health research.\n\n\nOur Common Ground was developed out of a dialogue between an academic researcher with a background in gender, women’s health, and community based research (Colleen Reid); a community based researcher and practicing social worker (Robin LeDrew); and an academic researcher with training in medical physics (Elana Brief). This dialogue was supported and encouraged by the Women’s Health Research Network (WHRN) co-leaders, WHRN members, as well as attentive and engaged external reviewers.\nThroughout the development of Our Common Ground we debated language, format, and the intended audience. We wanted to develop a research guide rooted in the experiences and practices of community researchers, a guide that reflected the current Community Based Research (CBR) environment, and one that can help new researchers connect with this approach. To that end we held a series of events and gatherings that were structured as conversations with individuals and groups interested in CBR. The document before you emerged from these conversations.\nIn Our Common Ground we provide an overview of the scope of the CBR process as it relates to research focused on girls’ and women’s health, and gender and health related issues. Although it is not an exhaustive guide, it is intended to give you a solid understanding of CBR. We hope that you find ways to use this document to help you advance your thinking about CBR, girls’ and women’s health, and gender and health, and, ultimately to identify the kind of research that most captures your passion and imagination.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.105
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1050.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0450.091
Scholarly communication0.0350.049
Open science0.0080.057
Research integrity0.0100.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network)Same topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207